Smt. Sheela Dwivedi vs Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Others

U.K. Dhaon, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Raj, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 & 3.

Petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 30th September, 1986. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary Assistant Teacher vide Appointment Order dated 2-11-1982. Thereafter vide order dated 30-9-86 petitioner''s services were terminated w.e.f. 1-10-86. Petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination has approached this Court and the termination order was stayed on 20-10-86. The said interim order is still operative.

Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after one year of service petitioner shall be deemed to be a regular employee. He further submits that before terminating the services of the petitioner no approval was taken by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari as provided under Rule 15 of the U.P. recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers Rules, 1978. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties submits that in the Appointment Letter itself it is mentioned that the appointment is temporary in nature and can be terminated without any notice. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned termination order.

I have perused the impugned order and gone through the entire record of the case.

Petitioner was appointed vide order dated 2-11-1982 and thereafter her services were terminated w.e.f. 1-10-1986 by the impugned order dated 30-9-1986. Before terminating the services of the petitioner admittedly no approval was taken by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari as is provided under Rule 15 of the Rules, 1978 and. as such, the termination order was illegal and not sustainable and this Court while passing the stay order dated 20-10-86 was conscious about the aforesaid position. Petitioner on the basis of the stay order passed by this Court is working on her post and now more than 13 years have lapsed since the stay order was passed by this Court.

In view of the aforesaid facts, this writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 30-9-1986, a copy of which is Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. The opposite parties are also directed to pay salary and other consequential benefits to the petitioner including arrears of salary.